User talk:Canterbury Tail/Archive 11

Original work

Hello All information on the Kline Fogleman airfoil is original work that other web sites have used from Dick Kline who is the inventor of the airfoil. He wrote the information and gave it to me to put on Wikipedia. Please help me understand how I need to have his original work left on this site. other sites who may have "borrowed this information do not own the information. If the site RC foamfighters gives me permission to use this information ( Which they have in an email )will this suffice ? Alternatively i can get Dick Kline to rewrite what he originally wrote. Your reply does not explain how the author of the work (Dick Kline) cannot use his own work on Wikipedia just because another site used it on theirs as a Quote No Copyright was obtained for this work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiefmanzzz (talk • contribs) 12:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a copyright expert, but WP:OTRS will tell you everything about how you and Dick Kline can go about clearing their work for Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 13:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning

Um... why did you give me a 3RR warning. I didn't do anything wrong. I noticed that someone used the term Premier instead of Prime Minister on the Prime Minister of Canada page and that user wanted to discuss it so we did and I asked if the discussion was over and GoodDay said it is so I can change it, which I did. You have no right to give me that warning. I got it for no reason.

174.7.14.105 (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind what I said. I understand what happened now. Although I didn't do anything bad I reverted too much. I get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.14.105 (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Page

Why did you delete my page on the Inverkeithing Basketball team? EliteDarkLord3.14159 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC).

Simple, it's not notable enough for an encyclopaedia article and was tagged as such. Canterbury Tail talk 22:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

And why not? EliteDarkLord3.14159 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC).

See WP:Notability. Basically your local high school basketball team is not notable. Canterbury Tail talk 20:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering what other information I need to put up on the "Jimmy's Traveling All-Stars" page in order to make it important enough. Do I need other outside sources where Jimmy's is mentioned? MiracleValerie —Preceding undated comment added 15:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC).

Trying to find out how iPod and Pepsi have pages but the one I posted for Cameo gets deleted. Please tell me what I'm doing wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YukonGroup (talk • contribs) 19:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You're posting copyrighted information and putting up marketing speak to promote your product. Please read WP:COI, WP:Advert and WP:Copyright. Canterbury Tail talk 19:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to submit this article on this cool tool, so please help me understand how to do this correctly. I still don't see what the difference in my article is from those of iphone and mac... —Preceding unsigned comment added by YukonGroup (talk • contribs) 21:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way for you to look over something before I actually post it to be sure that it won't just get deleted?--YukonGroup (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Owen Astrachan

I've just declined a speedy deletion tag you placed on this article on the basis that, as near as I can tell, this individual meets WP:PROFESSOR by virtue of his Deanship (or at least that notability is asserted by virtue of the Deanship). I apologize for substituting my judgment for yours in what was essentially a judgment call. However, I wanted to bring it to your attention in case you believe I've made a mistake or misinterpreted WP:PROFESSOR, which is entirely possible; you may wish to take this to PROD or AfD. If you have any questions or problems, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries, that's why I tagged it rather than deleting it outright. Canterbury Tail talk 14:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

And, frankly, I'm not 100% sure I got WP:PROFESSOR right, which is why I went into detail. Your greater experience will perhaps allow you to make a more closely reasoned decision. Thanks for giving this your consideration. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ulster

I am curious as to why you continue to try and make the Ulster early history article about Protestants Vs Catholics? The fact of the matter is that my edits are factual and I support them with references whereas you go round with a religious agenda, the fact that William of Orange had forces who flew a Papal banner is very important for readers of the article as it highlights the false and sectarian nature of the Orange order. Just look at the bias Presbyterians came to identify more with the State and with their Anglican neighbours, who perceived them as the lesser of two evils. There is no reference of that being the case nor is it fair to claim the natives were evil. I question your motives but I am outstretching a hand of good faith in the hopes you will see that you are biased and as this is an Encyclopedia not your ficticious diary you must remove that error. (Boundarylayer (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

You are changing the name of the county to a name that is incorrect. I.e. County Londonderry to County Derry. As a result it is revered. Also be aware of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, WP:NPOV. Canterbury Tail talk 14:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the anally retentive Derry/Londonderry naming dispute, do you not think the early history section of the Ulster page is overtly sectarian and incorrect? I have added references to help make the section reflect the reality of events more closely but you have reverted the changes, why? I believe it is you who should be aware of, not only author neutrality, but also the real history of the province. I am going to revert the section back to how it was after I editted it, and I'll scan through the section to see if I used Derry instead of Londonderry, and if so, I'll change it to Londonderry. If I miss any, feel free to change it to Londonderry. However I severely doubt this will appease you, Do you not think the data I added is important? Boundarylayer (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the rest of your edits it seems I was hasty in reverting all of them. From a first glance it seemed like you'd just deleted the County Londonderry items and comments. Canterbury Tail talk 13:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And I reverted your most recent edit. You didn't tone down rhetoric, you inflamed it with very point of view opinions and conjecture. You took a neutrally worded section and made it blatantly anti-British in sentiment and changed the tone to be completely unencyclopaedic. If you wish to make such changes again, discuss them on the talk page first under the Bold, Revert, Discuss process. Canterbury Tail talk 03:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutrally worded are you trying to be humourous? how was the original in any way factual or neutral, it set out to pit Protestants vs Catholics in a contrived fictitious manner. I contest that my edits were blatantly anti-british, in no part of my edit did I mention that Britain was evil nor did I even infer that, contrast this with the original, with it's obvious anti Irish sentiment as noted by the text I highlighted in Bold above last week. I also contest that my edit was unencyclopedic, as the last time I checked Wikipedia puts a lot of weight on including references, and since I used both internal and external references that mutes your point.

I did have a read of the Bold, Revert, Discuss process and I feel that it has, for the most part, an unbiased mediating philosophy. One of the suggestions was that when a dispute is in process, conflicting parties should make compromises. Have a look at the new edit of the early history section,(which I am about to edit) I hope you see that my edit reflects the truth far more than both my previous edit and the original. Of note is that in the Bold, Revert, Discuss process the use of automated or semi-automated tools is prohibited during a content dispute. Editors must not use tools such as Twinkle, Huggle or Rollback when in a content dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.79.224 (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have used no rollback tools in this content dispute whatsoever. I have never used Twinkle or Huggle in my life, and rollback was not used on this article. Please discuss the edits on the appropriate talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 14:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it but I'm still suspicious, well like I said, I editted the article and I beefed up the references in the section under discussion. I would like your opinion on the changes, I hope you note that the Catholic Protestant sectarian rhetoric has been removed, I think the words Catholic only appear once or twice now, likewise with the word Protestant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 18:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If I rolled back it would not allow me to enter text in the edit comments. And Twinkle and Huggle I believe say in the edit comment the tool name. Assume good faith.

For the edits they look much better this time yes. I agree the protestant/catholic thing was overdone..Canterbury Tail talk 19:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

City of Derry Airport

Alas, yet an other unregistered user is abusing the City of Derry Airport page again. If you look at the edit history you'll see that Jasepl and I have been trying to stop an unregistered user from making unreferenced edits regarding imaginary new flights soon to be announced by Aer Arann. It's just developed into edit warring. Would it be possible for you to protect the page again? Thanks, Regards --NorthernCounties (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Not enough to do anything about it. Not everything has to be referenced. If it goes in again, put a fact tag beside it asking for a reference. If not supplied in a week or two then remove it as unreferenced. Canterbury Tail talk 19:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Random IP comment

i disagree with your edits, what has happened is that gaelic names have been put into scottish town names that have no association with gaelic. i'm guessing that you are from canada, i'm not reading all that stuff on your homepage, you should get out more. ok so canada, Ottawa is the capital, and french is an offical lanuage of canada, but there is no "english" and "french" name for the city, just what the locals call it, this should be the same for the scottish towns. there are less than 5,000 people in scotland who can speak gaelic and its only in the north, let all towns are getting these silly gaelic names stuck on them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.236.201 (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Disagree all you like. You're deleting content just because you don't like it, and Scottish names have a Gaelic name as well and is an agreed standard. Also why do you think I'm from Canada? Canterbury Tail talk 19:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

absolutely and could I add that while the population of gaelic speakers in scotland is not very large it's far more than the 5000 you suggest! also slightly ironic how you wrote edit summaries about "no gaelic please we are scots" given the original (though not current) meaning of the term! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.53.145 (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

External Link removal

Could you please explain why you removed the AROTW link I added to the Schiphol Airport page, which links to an IATA-sponsored site that provides air-rail connection information about the specific airport in question? If I have broken edit rules please let me know what they are, but as far as I can see, this is a useful and relevant additional resource, which would be impractical to insert into the article itself.

I did amend about a dozen airport entries to add their respective links to this resource because I found it very useful and relevant and thought others would find it useful too. All I can think of is that somehow my amendments have been incorrectly interpreted as spam because of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.219.22 (talk) 12:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a travel guide, it's not here to tell people how they can travel to and from an airport. It is an encyclopaedia. See WP:EL. Canterbury Tail talk 12:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply and my apologies for any misunderstanding of the external link rules. I understand the distinction and how you arrived at the "travel guide" interpretation of my amendments.

However, the link in question also includes relevant contact details for the various rail operators (which is not covered by the official airport site page link) who are connected to the airport in question. Is this information not of encyclopedic value to the article in question? especially if it can be provided in a single link, instead of separate links for each rail operator running from the airport.

If this is not the case, is the correct "Wiki" method of addressing this cross-linking/reference issue, to instead create cross-links between the respective airport article and their related rail operator articles, in order to achieve the same result from a knowledge perspective? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.219.22 (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

CthulhuTech

In any case, CthulhuTech should be mentioned (and linked) in the Call of Cthulhu (role-playing game) article. Kintaro (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

But it's not connected. Add it as a see also perhaps, but it doesn't deserve any actual article space. Canterbury Tail talk 22:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I mentioned then CthulhuTech in the "See also" section, as you suggested. Kintaro (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you possibly block..

IrishForever Or DEATH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as an obvious Historian19 sockpuppet? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why he keeps coming back here. His socks are always pretty blatant. Anyway, done. Well spotted. Canterbury Tail talk 02:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Since you recognised him editing as an IP on some of the same articles the day before, I hoped it would be quicker than waiting for SPI. O Fenian (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you take a look

At the current discussion going on on my talk page? Two users are Edit Warring at Adi Da, I have warned them.... and neither believe that they have done anything wrong and are pointing fingers at each other. See User_talk:Dusti#I_have_not_reverted_anything Thank you, Dusti^SPEAK!! 02:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for looking at Highyack07's userpage. That was a scary page and even made me feel delusional. Morenooso (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Highyack07 is back with a userpage created by George Sterner. George Sterner's userpage recreate a different flavor of Highyack07's. Morenooso (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Runescape_Lords_Conquest

I hope now that i have reviewed the following guidelines about notability that you would now freely consider my origional request and tell me if it would be good enough to be put up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BertramIT/Runescape_lords_conquest

BertramIT (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Runescape_Lords_Conquest

How about now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BertramIT/Runescape_lords_conquest BertramIT (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry it just doesn't meet any of the notability requirements. It has had no reliable third party coverage, news coverage etc. It's a web video series someone made up one day. It's just not notable I'm afraid. Canterbury Tail talk 00:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

know what your talking about

that's no random site, thats the official website for the free french forces. this picture is of detachment 'L' of the SAS. what are you babbling about 1943? there were french sas since 1942. know what your talking about. Cliché Online (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

i'm sorry to ruin the myth but only the 1st and 2nd SAS were british, 3rd and 4th were french, and 5th was belgian. ever asked why the sas march song has a french title? "marche des parachutistes belges" which is french language for march of the belgian paratroopers. now check this free, french forces official website to learn about the french sas operations [1] instead of spreading nonsense and lies. Cliché Online (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

you might consider also this: "On June 30, 1984, at the opening of the new SAS base at Stirling Lines, Hereford, Sir David Stirling declared in his opening speech, published in his authorised biography: "... I have always felt uneasy in being known as the founder of the Regiment. To ease my conscience I would like it to be recognised that I have five co-founders: Jock Lewes and 'Paddy' Blair Mayne of the original 'L' Detachment, SAS; Georges Bergé, whose unit of the Free French joined the SAS in June 1942; Brian Franks, who re-established 21 SAS Regiment after the SAS had been disbanded at the end of the Second World War; and John Woodhouse who created the modern 22 SAS Regiment during the Malayan campaign by restoring the Regiment to its original philosophy. ..."

" omg! thats from the History of the SAS. Cliché Online (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

guess what? there are more about it! oh nos! more french sas!! weren't they just weeping like that guy on the propaganda picture?! seems not. look this and thats not a "random site" but the holy site about WWII, the same where the 'L' detachment picture is hosted. [2]. enjoy it! Cliché Online (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. You made a claim that a photo was taken in 1942 and included Free French forces. Unfortunately the source for the photo does not support that claim. See here. You claimed it was of a 1942 shot, when the owner of the photo claims it was taken in 1943. No claim is made on whether or not it shows Free French and there is no evidence either way to support your claim. I make no claims as to whether or not the Free French where involved in the SAS, this isn't what this is about. This is about claims on a particular photograph. Canterbury Tail talk 12:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

of course british chauvinism is a well-known fiction, watch this video [3] and its sequel; the picture is from the Sidi hannesih raid in 1942, there are 3 fench jeeps. and one dead. Cliché Online (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, you have no evidence, the owner of the photo states it was taken in January 1943. Canterbury Tail talk 12:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

so what? where is your proof that there is no free french SAS on this picture? the caption dont sasy they are british. alas, it says its L detachment and L detachment includes free french!! Cliché Online (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

So what?? You seem to be missing the point here. There is no evidence there is French forces in that image. There is no evidence there isn't. In the absence of evidence you can't claim that there is. It doesn't say they are British either. Canterbury Tail talk 12:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

that's pure logic, the caption says its L detachment SAS, we know the L detachment SAS is made of British and French, so its true to says that there are French and British. Cliché Online (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No it's pure supposition, original research and making stuff up. It may be L detachment, as the catalogue entry says, but there is nothing to prove there are French forces in that picture. Plus it's not from the raid you claim it to be having been taken six months later. Canterbury Tail talk 13:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

i think i'll add a full section with pictures about the french sas squadron, just to let readers know that there were belgian and french sas. not only the holy british and their jeeps. :) Cliché Online (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Good faith

what you did here is a blatant violation of WP:Agf using, an instantly removed mistaken post mine, as if it was intentionally written and to post a personal attack warning on my talk page as if the mistaken-deleted post was deliberated, while your boasting about the Imperial war musem here "The Imperial War Museum is a very reliable source" when i said ther could be mistake in their caption or date (as with in the US library of congress archives here "Exact Date Shot Unknown"/"Date Shot: 1 Jan 1943") is contradicted by the Imperial war museum itself as here "Contrary to the caption title below the invasion was not as successful as implied." which acknowledges misleading captions and propaganda even if its a holy british museum. Cliché Online (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You made a personal attack, I responded to it. I can't be helped if you then removed the edit after I had replied to you (or if an edit conflict caused a difference in versioning.) Either way, anything you enter and save in Wikipedia is in the edit history and that edit was still a personal attack.

As far as captions go, yes there may be errors, however in the absense of evidence we have to accept what is said. And continued comments like "holy british museum" isn't assuming good faith on your behalf, as you're implying only your French source (put together many decades after the events in question from other sources) is the only acceptable source. Canterbury Tail talk 12:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Me again

Hello, just wondering is it possible for you to semi protect the Cork Airport page as there has been endless edit warring over a trivial matter! Most notably between Footyfanatic and an IP. Thanks again!--NorthernCounties (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah

Sorry, will remember.----occono (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You deleted my work.

Seriously, if a page says it is under construction, don't delete it. You're abusing the rights you have. Stop patrolling like a renegade and use your head. Give people time to work on a page and don't intrude like an immature child. Multiple users have to work on some pages and we cannot script it under any other circumstances. Stop being foolish and infantile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.110.67 (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if you told me what editor you are and what page you created I'd be able to respond to this. Many pages are deleted in any given day. Canterbury Tail talk 21:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You deleteted my work.

I started to work on a page about my Grandmother! And i was not done and you delted it. I have all rights to write what I wrote about my Grandmother. I have all the copyrights reagarding her. So intestead of deteting what I started to work on. You could have contacted me and ask!!!!!!!! I am quite upset. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandraworldcruiser (talk • contribs) 02:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You copied text that is copyright the Royal Horticultural Society. Unless you can prove you represent them, and that they waive the copyright (contrary to the copyright notice on their website) then you do not have copyrights regarding their work. She may have been your grandmother, but Wikipedia cannot allow the reproduction of copyrighted work on the encyclopaedia, and juts because you are a relative of the subject does not mean you have copyright over what others write about her. Canterbury Tail talk 11:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

She was my Grandmother not if she may have been my Grandmother: She was my grandmother, Regarding Royal Horticultural Society I have a letter from them regarding that I can use what Roy Lancaster wrote. So how do I proove it? fax you? e-mail you all the copyrights I have during MY grandmother. If you are so silly to think that I have not asked for permission of what I can write and not write I cant help that. But I am going to write again and if you then delete what I am going to write and all the pictures perhaps I have to ask my father for the copyrights for his picture to use to? Try and delete what I write about My grandmother again and I am going forward with this case. I find myself finsihed with the correspondent with you and I have contacted Wikipedia foundation in San-Francisco about this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandraworldcruiser (talk • contribs) 22:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to contact someone with proof of copyright permission then please follow the process laid down at WP:OTRS. As for going forward with this case? What do you mean by that? Canterbury Tail talk 11:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

What is vandalism

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar!
		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar is an attempt to prevent the word "vandalism". It illustrates what vandalism looks like for persons who do not know and for persons with some confusion. ~ R.T.G 04:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say that Strabane is not in Northern Ireland? ~ R.T.G 04:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You could have a point. I believe the intent behind the edits was vandalism, especially based on their other edits, and the fact that they also persistently removed information (County Tyrone). Most of their other edits are to remove Northern from Northern Ireland to deny towns and places are from there, and only from Ireland. While yes in this case they did leave references to Northern Ireland elsewhere in the article, I am of the belief this was accidental and the intent was as before with their previous edits and their persistent attempts to edit Strabane and related articles to not be in Northern Ireland. However yes, I guess you do have a point on this. Canterbury Tail talk 11:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

There is an island in the north of Europe called Ireland. If you live on the island for too long you will cease to believe it exists. Alas, if you still believe it exists after a few years you will probably go mad and start killing people, "Is this not an island?", you will be screaming in the dead of night. Depending what part of the island you have lived your memory of it may become of some foreign land or of some ancient spirit. That sounds easy but there will be a never ending debate about the island between people who do not even believe it exists or that it exists as some sort of supernatural land they heard of once. If you ever find yourself on an island such as this and nobody comes up with a name for it within a year or so, run, swim, fly, get off that island any way you can because it will swallow you up starting with your mind. ~ R.T.G 00:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're saying in the above paragraph. Canterbury Tail talk 01:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that the edit is not vandalism. It is not even factually incorrect. If you do not leave it there and seek advice in the proper way I will do it for you. You have broken 1RR by a mile and Good Faith by two miles. There was no need to inflame and mark this new user as a vandal. Do it right or don't do it. ~ R.T.G 01:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

However the user is a vandal if you check their edits. I'm willing to concede the end results of that edit was not entirely vandalism, however the intent behind it I cannot assume good faith over. I shall leave those particular edits be now, however if the IP continues with other articles to attempt to (clearly )move the towns out of the country/state, and into a geographic island then that is vandalism (clear cut by removing all reference to Northern Ireland in the text, not just altering one reference.) Also I think you're interpreting the Troubles relationed 1RR a little broadly here. And I still have no idea what your above paragraph was trying to say. Canterbury Tail talk 01:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ireland is an island and the most likely to forget that are those that live there. That is all I was pointing out in that paragraph. The picture above illustrates for you quite clearly what vandalism is and I am telling you, this little edit war is absolutely troubles related. You are failing the dispute resolution test here. I have clearly raised the concern, barring one paragraph, that you do not appear to know what Ireland, vandalism or treatment of new editors is. You should let it alone or seek concensus. I have looked at all of 82.35.89.174 s edits and not one of them can be fairly amounted to vandalism. The edit in question is completely factual nevermind harmless. It's up to you but the vandalism accusations are wrong and edit warring is not allowed and does not solve anything. ~ R.T.G 06:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Editor has a history of removing Northern Ireland from articles, replacing it with Ireland. Taking away a country/state and replacing with a geographic entity. Changing people's country of birth from NI to I etc. I've said I'll leave it alone anyway. Also I don't know who you think lives in NI or on the island of Ireland, as I don't. Canterbury Tail talk 12:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

And now they continue under another IP constantly removing the fact that it is in Northern Ireland from the article. Yes that fact is in the infobox, but continual removal of it from the article is vandalism. Canterbury Tail talk 02:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Special Air Service

Hi I have been working on the Special Air Service article with the intention of putting it forward for a peer then a GA review. You are listed as an active editor on the article with User:ALR so I am letting you know my intentions. Of course any help would be appreciated and a watch for vandalism. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

following

stop following me around, it's "unsettling" to say the least. Po' buster (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The "rape accusation" in the Isaac Brock article were false, and the woman later admitted to them being false. That is why I added "falsely accused". Po' buster (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Reference says that charges where never laid, and the woman withdrew her accusation. That is not the same as it being false. Unless you know for sure one way or another you cannot comment that the allegations where false. Even if charges where laid and dismissed, doesn't mean they where false.

P.S. I'm not following you around, you're editing articles on my watchlist. Canterbury Tail talk 11:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

My suspicion of your following is now confirmed. This behavior is not acceptable. Po' buster (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? What are you talking about?Canterbury Tail talk 15:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It needs no explanation. You know exactly what I'm talk about. You have been added to my watch list and your edits will be reviewed. Po' buster (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes it needs an explanation. You're accusing me of something, and I'd like to ask what it is. If you are accusing me of stalking you through Wikipedia, then I'm afraid you're so very very wrong. You are a new user, I appreciate that, and you're editing on many different topics, judging by your contributions list. However many of the topics and areas you're editing are on my watchlists and in areas that I look at. It is not unreasonable for your edits to come to my attention as a result. I am not stalking you, following you or any such, and I suggest you withdraw any such accusations. And if I happen to agree with some of your edits, to areas I look at, I will make changes or suggestions. This is not stalking. Canterbury Tail talk 15:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume your edits on articles such as List of people from Ottawa, Spacing (magazine), etc. etc. etc which you had never edited before and which came days if not hours after I edited them was a mere coincidence, and in no way are you over reviewing my edits in a "following" fashion ? Po' buster (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Edits and comments coming mere hours after are a function of things appearing on the watchlist. The watchlist notifies you to edits to articles on your watchlist in the last short while. Making edits mere hours after someone edits something on their watchlist is how things would normally work yes. And things don't go on watchlists just because you've edited them, there can be many reasons for articles to go on a person's watchlist. Articles I'm personally interested in go on there, high vandalism articles, problem articles etc all go on my watchlist (which contains many many many hundreds of articles as I am a long time editor) for me to check what happens on them.

Looking through your recent contributions there are many many articles you're editing that are not on my watchlist or in areas I've an interest in. I don't know if it has escaped your notice, but all the articles you're accusing me of following you around are Canadian related, most centred around Toronto with the one exception of a controversial article on Isaac Brock which has been vandalised often (and I can't even recall why it ended up on my list, probably something to do with some of the vandalising IPs there.)

So yes, there are explanations for this before you can jump conclusions and assuming bad faith and accusing other editors of stalking you. As an administrator there are editors whose edits I follow due to vandalism, personal attacks and other such reasons, but you are not one of them. I've disagreed with a few of your edits, but I am not watching your edits or chasing you around Wikipedia as you seem to think. Canterbury Tail talk 18:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Very coincidental is all I'm saying. Very Po' buster (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I point you towards Wp:AGF. Do not accuse other editors of things that are not true. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort based on mutual respect, good faith and civility. There is nothing untoward happening here, it is just coincidence. I currently reside in Canada, and have moved around a lot over the years. My watchlist is full of items, related and unrelated. If you edit something on my watchlist I will look at the edit, like every other item on my watchlist. Canterbury Tail talk 19:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I point you towards Wp:Harassment, more specifically WP:Hound. I hope what you are claiming is true and my very broad areas of interest (from geography, to music, to media, etc.) just happen to coincidentally be somehow the same as yours. Good day. Po' buster (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Try reading them yourself and stop accusing me of something I have not done. Your edits crossed my watchlist of many hundreds pages, I do not go looking for your edits (or are you saying there is something wrong with your edits and I should go and look at them, something I have not done.) You are new to Wikipedia and still learning know how all this works, I appreciate this, but I'm telling you now to stop going around accusing established editors of harassment and hounding when it is not taking place. I do not appreciate your tone. If you continue along these lines then I will have to formally warn you for incivility and harassing other editors. I work in the media industry, am published author in many magazines and books, I live in Toronto (currently), and I spend a lot of time tracking down problem pages and users. There are dozens of reasons for your edits to have crossed my watchlists without me hounding or stalking you. Canterbury Tail talk 20:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate you welcoming me to wikipedia. I have read the mentioned guidelines. I gather you are sincere in your claims and thus we should not have any further issues. Po' buster (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm having no issue, but in the interests of good faith I'm willing to put all these claims ^ behind us. Canterbury Tail talk 20:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Good day, happy editing Po' buster (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow ! Yet another "coincidence" !! And again on an article which you have never before contributed to... What are the odds ! Po' buster (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And again on another article on my watchlist where I've watched you edit it over the last day or so. An article on my watchlist ever since Liz de Quebec started editing it. And you don't need to edit articles to have them on your watchlist. So stop with the accusations. Canterbury Tail talk 14:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I was simply warning that if an administrator in fact uncovers that you are following my edits in a WP:Hound fashion steps will be taken. If you are sincere and these are simply numerous coincidences of articles you have never edited than you have nothing to worry about. Po' buster (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

As an Administrator I know I have nothing to worry about. You however need to stop with the incivility to other editors and assume good faith. Canterbury Tail talk 15:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Do not get the impression that you are "above the law". Also I ask you kindly to please refrain from writing on my personal page or to me in general. I do not need to be reminded of simple 3RR and Civility warnings. Po' buster (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I never said I was, I just know I'm not stalking you and no evidence would ever suggest I was. Also I DO need to remind you of 3RR. As an administrator it is my job to warn people before they exceed the limitations, and to remind them that the 3RR isn't a hard rule, general edit warring even without exceeding is enough. I always find it best to remind people before they get into an area where a block is necessary, rather than the block just appearing, and it is the way to do things. And I do think you do need to be reminded of civility with your current rash of edits I'm afraid. Canterbury Tail talk 15:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to inform you politely that I will be reporting you for WP:Hound. I have repeatedly asked you to stop stalking me. You falsely passed it off as "coincidence" and it has become indisputably apparent that you are wiki stalking. Po' buster (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually I've just started looking into your edits following the information presented to me with regards to a possible sockpuppetry case. I had not before, but now I am yes as a result of that case being opened. That is not hounding, that is me fulfilling my role as administrator. And it now seems that the reason so many of your edits have cropped up on my watchlist may well have been due to PhilthyBear's edits. Feel free to report away if you so feel like, since you've been accusing it for some time now. However it looks like the sock/meatpuppetry case has definitely got some legs from what I've seen of yours and PhilthyBear's edits.

Anyway talking about hounding, it appears you're now following User:Miesianiacal around to have gone to the CDIC page he created, a page I'd already seen from his edits, and noticed from his talk comments. Canterbury Tail talk 01:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

County Derry

You sir, are a fool. There was a county Derry, or rather a county Doire, to use the proper name, for hundreds of years in Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puredavid (talk • contribs) 22:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The actual name of the county since it's creation is County Londonderry and there has never officially been a County Derry in the history of Ireland. The county when it was created, long before the British arrived, was County Doire, which was anglisized to be called Country Derry, therefore County Derry was a country for a quite large part of Irish history. As for the name being 'official,' official to who, because it was highly official to the people who lived in Doire at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puredavid (talk • contribs) 22:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

All I can advise is you check your history books, or get better ones. There was never a County Derry, and was never a County Dhoire either. County Londonderry was created solely by the British from County Coleraine and parts of Tyrone, Donegal and Antrim. There has never been a County Derry in the history of Ireland. Canterbury Tail talk 01:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You have actually no life. There was a county doire. You are just someone who sits on wikipedia correcting things that has nothing to do with you. This is because you have no friends, because you have a repugnant body, a impotent mind and the people skills of a rock. Block me all you want you know im right —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puredavid (talk • contribs) 01:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well you have now been blocked for 24 hours because of your edit warring. Feel free to return once your block expires, however if you continue to edit the way you have been you will be blocked again. Oh and this isn't counting your personal attacks against other editors.

If you wish to continue to edit in this area when you return I would suggest you spend the time of your block researching the history of County Londonderry. The Wikipedia article is a good start and will point you to some references and books you can read up on. Canterbury Tail talk 01:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

List of people from Ottawa

The list is suppose to be of people "FROM" Ottawa as the title implies. Not people who have lived, visited, or passed thru Ottawa. Po' buster (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright issues

Further to your question on WP:MCQ you may find it useful to read my image copyright information page and User:Quadell's US copyright help page as well as WP:GID. They pretty much cover most scenarios you will come across and have many useful links. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I keep looking for the relevant policies but can never find them for some reason. Canterbury Tail talk 11:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Orginal Material is NOT Copyrite Vio

Hello All information on the Kline Fogleman airfoil is original work that other web sites have used from Dick Kline who is the inventor of the airfoil he wrote the information and gave it to me to put on Wikipedia. Please help me understand how I need to have his original work left on this site. other sites who may have "borrowed" or used this information do not own the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiefmanzzz (talk • contribs) 11:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If permission has been granted for Kline to give up copyright and release them freely then you'll need to get him to prove permission to Wikipedia. See WP:OTRS for information on how this can be done. Until such time, copyrighted text cannot be used on Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 12:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Friendly FYI

Hello!

Just so you know, we shouldn't be {{subst:}} the template {{Notability}}, as you did here. This actually caused the page to show up in Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates. The standard listing of what can and should be substituted is at Wikipedia:Substitution. :) Keep up the positive contributions! ^Avicenna_sis @ 20:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Darn, I keep forgetting which to subst and which not. Sorry. Canterbury Tail talk 21:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all - it's an easy fix. :) ^Avicenna_sis @ 22:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The Elderine Stone

Hey, the details on The Elderine Stone were deleted due to ‎Unambiguous copyright infringement. As the owner of the text from the book, the blurb and any text relating to the book on the Author House Page and personal domain, both of which were referenced, there is no infringement. How can I have the page created without it being removed? Many thanks Alan Lawson 17:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanlawson84 (talk • contribs)

You would need to provide evidence via WP:OTRS that you own copyright. However even with the copyright issue sorted the book is still likely to be deleted as non-notable. Wikipedia isn't the place to advertise your self-published book and advertise yourself, and at this point there are no references to suggest that yourself, or your book, are in any way notable unfortunately. You are welcome to try, as others may think differently if references can be provided, and if so you can contact the above link. Canterbury Tail talk 18:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Po' Buster

You know, I've been thinking hard about it and I believe Po' Buster reminds me of someone. I find it also Ironic that PhilthyBear stopped editting on February 10th, and Po' Buster joined on the 13th, and one of the first edits was to Ottawa. The talk page blanking also speaks to me. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from. He came in with a good knowledge, but I'm not sure if he is someone else or not. Canterbury Tail talk 16:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And looking more into the edits of both users, both are mainly of Ontario related town/city topics, automotive and highways and both had issues with area codes. You may be onto something here, it definitely bears some more looking into. Canterbury Tail talk 18:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And with more connections. Gangs in Canada. And their very first edit, the very first one, was to post a disclaimer on their userpage saying they use public computers, possibly to try and claim that the IPs could belong to any other user. Yes this definitely warrants a CheckUser I think. Canterbury Tail talk 18:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I'm almost certain that the two are the same, however Po' has been relatively constructive in a number of areas, so I've let it slide. When Po' Buster initially showed up, TastyCakes expressed a similar opinion. -M.Nelson (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes he is constructive most of the time, but very quickly fell into a position of trying to push views on other people and general incivility. And if they are block evading, and a block for sockpuppet abuse at that, then it needs to be looked into. Canterbury Tail talk 18:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, I don't have the time tonight, so who wants to open the sockpuppet investigation page/checkuser report? Canterbury Tail talk 18:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to. I've grown tired of the editors that barge into articles demanding certain requirements be met to satisfy their personal desire, without any sort of rule or source to backup what is just their personal opinion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Done, but probably wrong. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems Po' buster's on the attack again. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems Miesianiacal is on the attack again. I asked him to bring it to the talk page and stop using weasel words. I will not revert again, but he should use the talk page and avoid weasel words. He has been asked to stop this kind of behavior before. Po' buster (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Page

can you pleas explain to me why you deleted my work - matisse derivan - this is no more advertising than golden artist colors or winsor and newton - my page actually had some relevant infomration on it please explain (Paddo777 (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC))

It was deleted as it was just blatant advertising for the company, and contained massive copyright violations taken from the webpage of the company. It wasn't written as an encyclopaedia article but rather as promotional copy. Canterbury Tail talk 11:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• what you say is quite untrue - it was written as an encyclopedic article as it was factual -check out [Golden Artist Colors]- that is blatant advertising- the reason it was written is we have had a few requests as to why being one of the oldest manufactures we did not have something on wikipedia - when several of our contemporaries do - - Please explain the copyright issue I own the company and hence the copyright - what would you like me to sign? (Paddo777 (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC))

No it was written as advertising speak. Lines such as "we are" are not encyclopaedic. And as for copyright, if you're taking text of your page we don't know it's you. You need to follow WP:OTRS to grant permission. Canterbury Tail talk 12:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct county name

Thanks for correcting the infoboxes in a few Roman Catholic diocese/archdiocese articles I'd edited recently. I'd got so used with "Bishop of Derry", "Bishop of Derry and Raphoe", "Diocese of Derry and Raphoe" and "Roman Catholic Diocese of Derry" that I'd forgot the county is "County Londonderry". Thanks for spotting it. Scrivener-uki (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Not an issue. It can get confusing sometimes. Canterbury Tail talk 19:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Po' buster lurks still

It would seem our friend User:Po' buster/User:PhilthyBear is still amongst us. Regard the edit history of anon IP 74.198.8.70:

• General Motors
• Southern Ontario
• List of people from London, Ontario
• Calgary
• National Capital Region (Canada)
• Golden Horseshoe#Transportation
• And his most recent to Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board: "I agree 'Crown Right in Canada' is represented by the Canadian Government and not the monarchy"; which mirrors exactly Po' buster's comments at Talk:Canada Development Investment Corporation: "Her Majesty in Right of Canada is represented by the government... The monarchy has little to no influence..." And 99.249.36.128's comment at the same page: "Looking at this childish argument I would have to agree that 'Her Majesty in Right of Canada'... is represented by the government more than the monarchy."

What think you? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite possible, I've been looking out for him. However it also seems that perhaps someone else is also editing on that IP that is unconnected. We'll have to just keep an eye out. Canterbury Tail talk 11:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

CT- That anon user has returned a couple of times (again just today) and is still edit warring and launching personal attacks. I've finally been provoked enough to file another checkuser into whether or not this anon is actually Po' buster/PhiltyBear evading his ban. It's at the same location as the previous two CUs: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PhilthyBear. Please offer whatever opinion you have. Cheers. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Carr Street (St. Louis)

Hello Canterbury Tail, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Carr Street (St. Louis) has been removed. It was removed by MetroFan2009 with the following edit summary '(removed proposed deletion)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with MetroFan2009 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to take part in the article's current AfD. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 08:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

From Edwin Black

Hello. If you wish a book or documentation, happy to send. Contact me at inquiry@edwinblack.com. Happy to help. Edwin Black Washington DC (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

3RR of Hahbie

In fairness to Hahbie, I want to report myself for violating 3RR. In my defense, I would direct you to my response to Franamax on my talk page. I would also like to point to where I tried to engage Hahbie on his talk page, but the page was deleted and for some reason and my edits there no longer show up in my contributions list. -Rrius (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you take a look?

Balmoral Unionist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making rather unhelpful edits. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism only account. Indeffed. Canterbury Tail talk 18:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I did not see much possibility of anything constructive coming from that editor. O Fenian (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope, none whatsoever. And it's not even a content dispute as some said, it's vandalism pure and simple. There is no dispute over what an organisation calls itself, and the rest was against WP:IMOS (almost all of it). Canterbury Tail talk 18:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Toronto Cycling

It isn't anywhere else in the article, it should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh cavan (talk • contribs) 18:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It is. It is linked in the Toronto template at the bottom of the page. No reason for everything to be linked in the actual bulk of the article, especially not that prominently. Canterbury Tail talk 18:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, I see - sorry about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh cavan (talk • contribs) 08:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi, can you give an opinion on the question posed here please? --HighKing (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Breach of 1RR

See here. --HighKing (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No it's not. You made an edit before a discussion had concluded, MidnightBlueMan reverted. That's within 1RR. Canterbury Tail talk 18:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No. I reverted a change made by an SPA which didn't have consensus and resulted in an edit war. After the edit and the subsequent edit war, you posted a warning about 1RR but you didn't revert to the previous text. I then asked you a question about the possibility of reverting, and you stated that you hadn't time to go back over the edit history but that you didn't see a problem with reverting. My recent revert placed the text to the previous edition. MBM has now reverted and is in breach of your 1RR rule. Please review the timeline and you will see this to be the case. --HighKing (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No, from my reading of it you reverted an edit that happened at least a week ago. I don't consider that to be in a reasonable timeframe to count as the revert of a 1RR. Canterbury Tail talk 19:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused based on how you stated it was OK to revert to the previous version after I pointed out that the edit had no consensus and was performed by what appears to be an account created specifically to make the edit (User:Hrotovice), so I don't understand how you now appear to classify that as not really a revert, and that therefore MBM's revert doesn't then count as part of 1RR. There is no timeframe under which a revert is not classified as a revert, but if there was, I expect it would be a lot longer than a week! --HighKing (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

<>Hi. There was a recent and aggressive edit war on the BI page, and neither of the editors appears to have suffered any consequence at all. Where are the police? Wotapalaver (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody can agree on what 1RR means, nobody seems to care or listen on that page. The whole article is a hotbed of nationalistic editing where us admins come across as the bad guys on the article no matter what we do. Sorry, but you're all on your own now. Mess it up anyway you feel like, it's no wonder the article has driven many good admins and editors away. Canterbury Tail talk 13:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If my count is correct the editors even breached 3RR. Besides, some actual enforcement of policy on the page might cause some improvements. If it's going to be a free fire zone then someone is going to have to step in sometime anyway. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I see the one you're talking about. I wasn't around that day so didn't spot it, and I can't block after the fact. Canterbury Tail talk 17:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If you can't block after the fact, who can? Wotapalaver (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I can, but I'm not going to go in there days after the offense and block for it. I think you'll be hard pressed to find an admin who will. Canterbury Tail talk 11:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing a statute of limitations in policy. I do remember seeing 3RR. Perhaps I missed it. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes you saw a breach of 3RR, definitely. Canterbury Tail talk 21:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Japanese war fans

Thanks for your comments on my edits, I will keep them in mind {Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)}

NI talk post

I reverted your removal of the post by 86.44.47.116 to Talk:Northern Ireland. It may have rambled but it was not off-topic. In any event, one post does not make a forum. If it develops in to a forum, it can closed and archived in situ - but don't remove comments so casually. --RA (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Adds: Struck "so casually" above because I know you don't do things "casually" and that in fact you put much thought in to your actions. --RA (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Tis okay, I'll leave it be for now. It is more of a rant than anything constructive though. Canterbury Tail talk 19:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I've closed off the entire section. As (probably) the most forceful advocate of change, I can't reasonably be accused of bias in closing it off in case it attracts unwelcome attention. --RA (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Canterbury Tail talk 19:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Irish Republicanism in Northern Ireland

An article that you have been involved in editing, Irish Republicanism in Northern Ireland, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish Republicanism in Northern Ireland. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

Mabuska ^(talk) 12:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

Why did you make threats towards me on my talk page? Just because me and another user are disputing content and we have reverted each other does not give you the right to threaten to block me. BACnet (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You are involved in an edit war and Wikipedia has a 3 revert rule. Any user on Wikipedia has the right to give you that warning in such a situation. And I see you have subsequently ignored the warning and continued the edit warning, as a result you have been temporarily blocked from editing. Canterbury Tail talk 10:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is how you did this. Your original comment or warning made inflammatory accusations. Instead of engaging both participants you seem to have focused on an individual.

For example right now you appear to be returning to my talk page and cluttering it with old notices that had your original inflammatory comments removed. I think you are posting something that is a little misleading and borderline harassing.

BTW - Why didnt you warn Jeffro and why did you block me for two days over a content dispute? I really had no idea that you had the authority to block people based on the rude remarks you made to just me during the content dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradsp (talk • contribs) 16:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I used the standard {{subst:uw-3RR}} template. That is the standard 3RR warning template. And I'm not returning and cluttering your talk page, I reverted vandalism removal of text by an IP address. As for not knowing who has the authority to do what, there is an Admin list around somewhere. Also it shouldn't matter, you should edit according to Wikipedia's rules and policies at all times, not just when dealing with someone who may have authority to do something.

With regards to Jeffro, yes you're right I should have warned him also. I missed that, and I apologise for it. Canterbury Tail talk 17:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

NP - I am fairly new to wiki compared to you guys and I am still figuring things out. I took the liberty of changing the subject line of this section, hope you dont mind. I read-up on the use of talk pages and it sattes that I can clean-up my talk page by deleting posts or archiving. I want to delete yours and Jeffros comments from my Talk page. Do you have a problem with this or am I violating a COC by doing so? BTW -Jeffro deleted the _exact_ same thing from his talk page and nothing happened...

Thx BACnet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC).

You can do what you like on your talk page. You can remove warnings and other comments. Don't change other people's comments, but you can delete them. I reverted an IP address deleting items, if that was you then you should edit from your account as an IP deleting stuff will be reverted as presumed vandalism. Canterbury Tail talk 18:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok the section is my comment so I am changing it and deleting your comments from my page.

That's your prerogative. It's your page, you're free to do so. Canterbury Tail talk 18:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarify

Just to clarify what I meant by rebutting you on WP:IE. The picture that all of Ireland is one country is one POV. The picture that Northern Ireland is in one state and the rest of Ireland is another and never the twain shall meet is another POV. In any given context either might weight in to different measures but pushing one picture to the exclusion of the other is POV pushing. (And there are some articles where one or the other is pushed to greatly.)

I don't mean that you have ever pushed it. But the "statist" approach is the lazy way to POV IMHO. One size can't be expected to always fit all. --RA (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. It just seems sometimes the NI is in Ireland thing is pushed a little too much on Wikipedia, more than it should be. Now I know there are a lot of POV pushers out there who go as far as removing NI references and changing them to Ireland, and I also know you're not one of them. I was really just opening it up for a discussion. Labelling things generically as Irish is also a lazy way to POV as well, as things could and should be considered in different ways depending on what they are? After all NI is also British so what's to say music from there isn't British and not Irish? Canterbury Tail talk 17:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Labelling things generically as Irish is also a lazy way to POV as well..." Quite right. --RA (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of a quote from a British sitcom, the one about the pub landlord. "The only person who knows less about Ireland than you, is everyone in America." 01:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Shame on you"

I want to apologise for that comment last night. I could excuse myself by giving some spiel about a long week but that doesn't suffice. It was out of order. --RA (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I know how heated things on Wikipedia can make us all act. Everyone has said something we've later regretted, I'm no exception. That's why I'm going to take some time away from it. Canterbury Tail talk 20:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Though as Scolaire said: shame on me. --RA (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not passing around blame, these things happen, I understand. Canterbury Tail talk 12:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

County Londonderry Navbox

I intended to raise the issue but i see you already got to it! When will they learn... Mabuska ^(talk) 22:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Your view is requested...

Hi i would like your view on the following proposals giving in the discussion of introductions to Northern Ireland counties (and i suppose Ireland county articles in general): Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Proposals_for_points_3_and_4. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

While i know your taking some time away from the issue (going by what you said above), how do you feel on the following wording:

County Antrim is one of six counties that form Northern Ireland, situated in the north-east of the island of Ireland. Adjoined to the north-east shore of Lough Neagh, the county covers an area of 2,844 km², with a population of approximately 566,000, and is named after its county town Antrim. It is also one of the thirty-two counties of Ireland, lying within the historical province of Ulster.

Personally i'm not for the inclusion of thirty-two counties, however i feel this maybe downplays it just enough to be acceptable, as well as the changing of the links de-highlighting the thirty-two. It details the bare geographical and demographic details of the county first before any historical connections. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm against the inclusion of the 32 counties. May as well include the number of counties in the UK (and you could also say in the RoI ones that they used to be part of the larger number in the UK as well.) It's irrelevant what goes on in another country, and also as has been pointed out I believe the number 32 is wrong anyway. Canterbury Tail talk 23:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I am getting real tired of seeing how everything to do with Northern Ireland must be connected to the "island" of Ireland whilst anything that shows Northern Ireland on its own is wrong. County map images, ledes into the county articles, and proposals to merge Northern Ireland articles such as Counties of Northern Ireland with Counties of Ireland. It all feels like back-door united Ireland. I wonder should an arbitration request be put in as i don't think the county lede issue will get a concensus and that a binding line must be drawn on Wikipedia that clearly defines Northern Ireland apart from the rest of the island just as England, Scotland, and Wales are clearly defined from each other despite sharing history and each others lands at one stage or another. I think it might be needed as i can't even use/request an image showing the counties of Northern Ireland for a simple county navbox without having to show their relation to the rest of the island. Maybe i should make a request to Wikipedia:MEDCAB first. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the matter may need arbitration. NI has no relation to the RoI, they are separate countries. We don't talk about other country/states in relation to others, no reason NI is special, as it isn't. Maybe we should mention RoI counties in respect to UK counties, and the country in relation to the UK. Canterbury Tail talk 00:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to start with Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard to get neutral povs on the issues. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Heres the link to the npov discussion i've submitted. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Nicely worded, you put your cards firmly on the table. I'll think about responding into it. Canterbury Tail talk 11:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous IP

Thanks for helping to defend the Thomas Cranmer article. We need your help again. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheap at twice the price

Why are people moaning if it only cost £195? That is less than a week's wages.. O Fenian (talk) 09:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I did notice that, and thought it was amusing. Canterbury Tail talk 11:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

About an old wrong deletion

On 18:43, 22 June 2009, you deleted the "Kernel for Adaptative, Asynchronous Parallel and Interactive programming" with the wrong justification "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: blatant copyright vio of http://kaapi.gforge.inria.fr/doc/kaapi.html". As explained in the talk page (I remember explaining that after the first proposal for deletion), both I and Serge Guelton (the primary author of the wikipedia article) were authors of the software and its website (ie http://kaapi.gforge.inria.fr/doc/kaapi.html). Its means there is absolutly no problem for us to import the text of the website with any license (ie CC-BY-SA 3.0 for wikipedia). Any author can relicense its own work as he wants. I would like to recover and improve the page. How can I do that ? Do I have to retype the whole article ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdanjean (talk • contribs) 10:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Be aware that GPL and CC-BY-SA are not compatible copyright models. I'm unfortunately not an expert on copyright matters, so I can't really comment. The page however has not been locked so you could recreate it and see what happens. However there is one other point beyond the Copyright issues, that of whether or not the subject is actually notable enough for an article. You state you authored the software, so you need to read Conflict of Interest, WP:Notability and References before you do anything. Not all topics are eligible for inclusion on Wikipedia, and a quick search makes no suggestion that your software has received significant independent third party coverage to make the notability requirements. Canterbury Tail talk 11:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that GPL and CC-BY-SA are compatible (they are not). I'm saying that the same information (or software) can have several licences. And an author can change or add a licence on its own work as he wants (of course, not for other works he only uses). If I understand your answer, the previous article cannot be resurected... :-( About notability, I was thinking about writing the article more centered on work-stealing paradigms, Intel TBB, Cilk and Kaapi becoming examples of such technics. But I'm not sure I will write it if the info can be delete without being recovered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdanjean (talk • contribs) 13:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The article can be recovered, I can pick it out of the archives. However I have no evidence you are who you say you are unfortunately and as a result I cannot put the article in your own working area as it would be a copyright violation until such time as it was proven otherwise. However since the previous article was almost entirely a straight copy and paste from another source, which you say you wrote, I don't understand why you say you can't work on the info without the article being recovered. You can still create an article at that name again, it hasn't been blocked from editing. Canterbury Tail talk 14:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

To prove you are who you say you are, and to give the copyright permission out to the world, you will need to go to WP:OTRS and follow the processes there. Canterbury Tail talk 14:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your info. I was not aware of procedures such as WP:OTRS. Nevertheless, it tooks some time to prepare an article even if main contents was already wrote. Wrong complains about licence have been raised, we gave the info and the result have been a deletion and a suspicion we are not the authors. With all this feedback, we will decide if we take the time to try to do another article or not. <quote>I don't understand why you say you can't work on the info without the article being recovered</quote> This is just because I do not want to take lots of time to write an article that will be deleted. I wanted to understand what we should have done last year and what happened exactly. I think you gave me all the info I was looking for (thanks again) but I'm not sure I will try or not to contribute to wikipedia again. Vincent (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For you work on Empire Strikes Back and bringing it too FA Status Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mayumashu

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mayumashu IZAK (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending Changes and British Isles

As the de facto moderator of that page, would you mind commenting on a proposal I've made to trial Pending Changes on that page as a an alternative to the don't revert a revert rule. Thanks, --RA (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

... alright ... but do you have an opinion about Pending Changes? --RA (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I haven't paid t he system much attention. However I don't think it will fix anything really. I may chime in at some point. Canterbury Tail talk 17:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. --RA (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

1RR

I was getting ready to start enforcing 1RR on British Isles, but couldn't find the original restriction. Now it's been rescinded because no one was enforcing it.?  :) Dreadstar ☥ 15:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The restriction is under Template:Editnotices/Page/British Isles, you can just uncomment it, I didn't delete text in anticipation of it coming. No one was enforcing it, all other admins have left the page to the continuous nationalist arguments and abusive comments. It's a mess, will likely always be a mess. If you wish to enforce it again, them by all means, I think some of the editors would welcome it. I wish you the best of luck. Canterbury Tail talk 15:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll mull it over a bit...leaning towards reinstating it. Dreadstar ☥ 16:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent IP block

Hello, you recently blocked 173.70.153.3, thanks. This person also appears to have been making the same kinds of edits using Slugmobile. I don't know exactly how these blocks work and whether that user needs to blocked also, is already blocked, or maybe should be indef-ed? Thanks, SQGibbon (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Canterbury Tail talk 20:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

British isles edit warring

Hi, I think you're probably trying to step back from the British Isles article (understandably), but I noticed you've been posting warning notices on people's talk pages. For example this little spat [4] - there was a temporary break after you posted the warnings then User:Pconlon changed the article to a non-consensus version (4th time in 24 hours - although he appears to have logged off at one point). While I was never a fan of 1rr, the threat of blocks frightened a certain type of editor away. Could you at least semi-protect the article so editors cannot circumvent the 3rr rule by pretending to be IPs? And should the consensus version be restored pending discussion? (Actually I've done this since that seems to me to be the way 3rr would work if enforced.) Wiki-Ed (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: 3RR & Edit Warring

What do I do when the issue is referred to the relevant WikiProject, but its advice is ignored on the grounds only three weighed in? And what about when three editors dispute the WikiProject and insist their opinions make a consensus, even though three on the WikiProject did not, and then do not apply their decision to their own edits? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 18:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Can I draw your attention to this edit on the O'Neill article, a few hours after you had given this warning? Thank you. Scolaire (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Peeping Tom (theatre company)

Greetings Canterbury Tail - am slightly surprised that you have copyvio-speedy deleted the above article. As per guidelines, if there was any clear copyright infringement left in there, it could simply have been removed. The part of the text that I had referenced, the lede, was clearly not copyright material and was enough to keep the article in place at least while the AfD discussion was underway. Am considering getting the article undeleted but would like to have your feedback first in case there's anything I missed. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I just grabbed bits of the article and did searches, and came up with copyvios each time. I may or may not have grabbed the start of the article, as I usually grab from further down. I've undeleted it, and removed the copyvios. Generally we don't have time to go through every line in an article, but if it's apparent a new article contains massive copyright violations, then usually the entire article is subjected to deletion. Canterbury Tail talk 11:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for response/reply. And thanks for undeleting it. I'll see if I can tidy it up a bit. realise it's a borderline case, but that's why it was up for AfD. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Lottery Draw

McGeddon on "Number of the Beast" [5] told me to post to that page "Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories". Kindly don't undo my post, there must be a place on Wiki for people like me. Wiki is supposed to enable free expression and reproduce reality. People have a right to think, be and speak as they like and do have a niche where they can live free. I'm being singled out for harrassing like kids bullying me in classrooms. I've been kicked out of four pages. I've not put any kind of fight and have done everything asked of me. Let me say an article was printed in the newspaper-magazine. Stop stalking me, please. Geiremann (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not a conspiracy theory. Also Wikipedia is not about free speech and enabling of free expression, I don't know where you got that from. It's an encyclopaedia based upon verifiable reliable facts and notability. You have a right to think what you want yes, but you don't have a right to post what you want on Wikipedia. You need to abide by the rules of the site and free speech in articles isn't one of them. Canterbury Tail talk 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)